this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
59 points (92.8% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
6512 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
59
How Sony's Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system transformed the U.S. Open (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

How Sony's Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system transformed the U.S. Open::CNBC got a behind-the-scenes look at Sony's Hawk-Eye line-calling system to understand how the tech works in tennis and other major sports.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dunno. The match that prompted the change was pretty outrageous. Players shouldn't be competing against umpires as well as their opponent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. The rule is "if the ball touches the line, it's out" (or is outside the line, whatever) why does it matter if a human judges it or a camera?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it touches the line, it is in.

It matters because humans are fallible. Machines are much more reliable in situations where there is an unambiguous right answer. That match was awful to watch and it was made worse because the TV audience could see how badly the umpire was behaving.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I think my point came across wrong. I was angling for the "why shouldn't we use cameras since they're less fallible?", I don't understand when people say "we need human judges because that's more pure!" type responses.